'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a

a reply to: windword

But Ehrman doesn't believe in a "fake Jesus". He believes in a historical Jesus, even after deciding he was no longer a Christian and losing his faith...

originally posted by: windword
But, whatever, whether I'm right or wrong in my personal theory, the biblical character of Jesus Christ and all his mystical, magical properties, is not a true historical figure. And without the magic, we don't have much to go on.

Ummm...dude...no kidding.

I mean...like you have been told time and time again- history is not saying a magical man did magic and then returned from the dead to do more magic.

And...

We know plenty about Jesus that has nothing to do with magic.

Including some of his teachings. In fact- his teachings showed wisdom, depth and integrity. Jesus was the man. Its just people like to slander or make up stories about the guy.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

We know plenty about Jesus that has nothing to do with magic.

Like what? What do we "know", outside of the Bible, tells us?

a reply to: windword

are we really surprised about the forgeries and mistranslations? its been 2000 years of the powerful controlling its content but still the message is peace and the golden rule

I'm not a christian but i'm fair to different viewpoints

a reply to: DeadSeraph

But Ehrman doesn't believe in a "fake Jesus". He believes in a historical Jesus, even after deciding he was no longer a Christian and losing his faith...

So what? I have to "believe" what he does. He has no fact to back up his beliefs.

Personally, I think this is where Bart Ehrman is a sell out. I think that only because of the way he goes out of his way to attack those who don't believe in a historical Jesus. His passion against those who don't believe leads me to believe that's where he's being paid to keep up "faith" if he wan't to keep his career. Face it, he'd loose it if he discounted Jesus in totality.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: windword

are we really surprised about the forgeries and mistranslations? its been 2000 years of the powerful controlling its content but still the message is peace and the golden rule

I'm not a christian but i'm fair to different viewpoints

Sure. But when being a juror in a trial, how much are you going to believe of a witness's testimony, whose been proven a liar?

Funny thing about the "Golden Rule", It's been a commonality since Buddha first said it in circa 600 BC.

a reply to: windword

Who said the golden rule was only meant for people following buddah? my belief is that all paths lead to "god" meaning that maybe they're all linked? but thats for a different topic

a reply to: windword

Nonsense.

First of all, I never said you "have" to believe in anything. You can believe in goblins and fairies for all I care. Doesn't make you right.

Secondly, he has lots of facts to back up his position, you just discard them outright, or poke illogical holes in them to your own satisfaction. Ehrman isn't the only secular academic who thinks Jesus existed. There are lots of them, and their beliefs haven't cost them their jobs or livelihoods.

If anything, it is far more lucrative to hop on the mythicist band wagon and write books, since telling people what they want to hear tends to sell more books than not. Look at Richard Carrier. He is probably the one person in mythicist circles who actually has a PHD in a relevant field, and he does just fine for himself.

Nobody is paying Ehrman for his beliefs. That is a silly accusation. If there was some Christian conspiracy to buy off academics, don't you think Christians would pay him a little more to go all the way and declare Jesus as the Son of God? Maybe give him a few kickbacks to sort of keep quiet about that whole loss of faith thing? Or tell him the cheques will stop coming in if he doesn't start towing the party line about the resurrection?

Ehrman's passion against mythicists isn't because he's on the Christian payroll (lol). He's passionate about history.

originally posted by: windword


Personally, I think this is where Bart Ehrman is a sell out. I think that only because of the way he goes out of his way to attack those who don't believe in a historical Jesus. His passion against those who don't believe leads me to believe that's where he's being paid to keep up "faith" if he wan't to keep his career.

Wow...I almost spit coffee on my keyboard.

YOU are saying this about someone ELSE!?

YOU!!?

lol.

Sigh...so how much of a check are you being cut to ignore the entirety of real mainstream, legitimate history dealing with Historical Jesus?

MM

a reply to: JDmOKI

Sure. But the fact the Jesus quotes others, kinda takes away from him being God, imo, as I think God would have something original to say.

For Windward's sanity: historians sit and argue about this all the time. History forums and drunken university professors love to argue about this.
For The Mask's sanity: they're usually a bit more giving about it and refer less to zombiefied Jewish people and magic. They're mostly into the context of what is said and how it lines up with known Jewish beliefs around the same period.
For my sanity: Oh great spaghetti monster, forgive them, they know not what they do!

P.S - believers are actually winning. While the New Atheists are in here arguing over a deceased person of Jewish descent they're not starting any political parties

a reply to: Mr Mask

YOU are saying this about someone ELSE!?

Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

My career isn't based on divinity and religious studies. If Ehrman wants to keep his university job and respected position, he'd better toe the line, so to speak. We all know what happens to those who don't, in religious and political circles.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JDmOKI

Sure. But the fact the Jesus quotes others, kinda takes away from him being God, imo, as I think God would have something original to say.

Ya...we get it bro...

Historical Jesus was not a God or magic.

Wow...imagine having an adult conversation about "history" with some faith-hater screaming "there is no magic! there is no magic!".

This entire debate has zero to DO with magic. it has to do with the following and ONLY the following-

MOST historians think Jesus was a historically real human who lived, preached, got arrested and then crucified- and then others claimed to have seen him alive again.

While a handful of published people (most not historians) say this isn't true, and that there was no Historical Jesus.

Are you seriously bringing up that Jesus was not magic again? Ok...nice. Here let me add to that-

He was not a unicorn. He did not summon UFOs or goblins. He did not breath fire. He did not turn invisible and fly. He did not bend steel with his mind. He was not bulletproof. He didn't invent the iphone (nor own one).

And he most surly was not a leprechaun.

Now..please...can you maybe stop using "Jesus wasn't magic" as your argument on wether or not he was a rela human? thanks.

I swear...its like my 10 yr old kid demanding Pokemon are important.

MM

originally posted by: windword


My career isn't based on divinity and religious studies. If Ehrman wants to keep his university job and respected position, he'd better toe the line, so to speak. We all know what happens to those who don't, in religious and political circles.

Ooooh back to your whole "history is being held hostage by evil church conspirators" again eh? Ya...history don't work that way. Sorry. Too many people looking to debunk the next to be accredited immortality in historian heaven.

You assume thousands of historians (most even) think Jesus really existed cus some cloaked shadow in boogie-man-church-land is holding a gun to thier careers if they make a peep about the dark secret plot of fake Jesus?

You really think the academic world operates as a "CODENAME: Kids Next Door" episode?

Sorry bro...no.

MM

a reply to: Pinke

Thank! (I think)

P.S - believers are actually winning. While the New Atheists are in here arguing over a deceased person of Jewish descent they're not starting any political parties

Is that based on recent arguments, or on the whole thread? Because, in my opinion, the non-believers won the debate several pages back, and now it's just stupid repetition, minus the scholarly quotes.

originally posted by: Pinke
For Windward's sanity: historians sit and argue about this all the time. History forums and drunken university professors love to argue about this.
For The Mask's sanity: they're usually a bit more giving about it and refer less to zombiefied Jewish people and magic. They're mostly into the context of what is said and how it lines up with known Jewish beliefs around the same period.
For my sanity: Oh great spaghetti monster, forgive them, they know not what they do!

P.S - believers are actually winning. While the New Atheists are in here arguing over a deceased person of Jewish descent they're not starting any political parties

God bless you. (pick a God, any God). Logic is like air right now. Thank you.

And whoever your avatar is...is perhaps the real messiah. At least I'd build a church and worship.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Whatever. Bart Ehrman has effectively debunked the New Testament accounts of Jesus Christ, but jumps all over those who dare to say that they don't believe that an historical Jesus existed.

Just sayin.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Mr Mask

Whatever. Bart Ehrman has effectively debunked the New Testament accounts of Jesus Christ, but jumps all over those who dare to say that they don't believe that an historical Jesus existed.

Just sayin.

Because there are strong/good reasons to accept the evidence for a historical Jesus while there are no reasons to accept debunked nonsense (in a physics perspective, mind you) from the bible that is not considered historically accurate.

The bible is FILLED with historically incorrect stories and accounts.

Don't you understand that has nothing to do with why historians think Jesus existed?

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

Please provide one example of any contemporary historical writing that proves the existence of one Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus the Son of Joseph, or Jesus Christ, that's not in the Bible.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Mr Mask

Please provide one example of any contemporary historical writing that proves the existence of one Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus the Son of Joseph, or Jesus Christ.

Sir you have been linked, directly shown, seen quotes of and direct passages from mainstream historians. You have been shown discovery channel drivel for the laymen and shown the extended and in-depth research of those who dominate the field of history to gain an expert's view.

Time and time again in this thread (and I am sure elsewhere) you have been spoon fed proper historical research and info. Accept it or don't.

I'm not here to teach you history. I'm here begging you research it.

MM